1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On October 31, 2001, the Plaintiff succeeded to the above house on the ground of ○○○○○○○○-dong 116-27, 11, from his father’s deceased Kim Jong-hwan (hereinafter “the instant house”). On June 2, 2006, around June 2, 2006, transferred the said house to the Nonparty for KRW 2.2 billion.

B. On August 31, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the acquisition value of the instant real estate at the conversion price as stipulated in Article 97(1)1 (b) of the Income Tax Act at the conversion price as stipulated in Article 97(1)1 (b) of the Income Tax Act, and reported and paid the said tax amount.

C. After that, on November 5, 2007, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition imposing capital gains tax of 357,983,480 won on the Plaintiff on the ground that the acquisition value of the instant house acquired by inheritance is KRW 154,323,00, which is the standard market price calculated pursuant to Articles 60 through 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) as of the commencement date of inheritance pursuant to Article 163(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 16, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on or around April 16, 2008, but received a decision of dismissal on or around June 24, 2008, and filed the instant lawsuit on or around July 29, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the whole purport of argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant calculated the acquisition value of the instant house by applying the instant provision, but (1) the instant provision is null and void as an interpretation provision that expands the contents of taxation requirements prescribed by the parent law without any basis for delegation under the Income Tax Act, which is the mother corporation. (2) Even if there are grounds for delegation under the Income Tax Act, the instant provision applies only to cases where the actual transaction value under Article 97(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act is confirmed, and where the actual transaction value at the time of the acquisition of the instant house is not confirmed, it cannot be a basis provision for disposition. (3) The instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the provisions of Article 100(1) of the Income Tax Act that prescribes that the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value in calculating the transfer margin.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the argument

In full view of the purport of Articles 94(1), 96(1), the main sentence of Article 97(1)1 (a) and (b), and Article 97(5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), where transfer gains from transfer due to such transfer are to be calculated based on the actual transaction value as assets other than assets inherited or donated by inheritance or donation fall under a general expensive house pursuant to the main sentence of Article 97(1)1 (a) of the Income Tax Act, if it is impossible to verify the actual transaction value required for such transfer, the transaction case prescribed by the Presidential Decree may be calculated based on the amount, appraisal value, or conversion value because the assets inherited or donated fall under the expensive house. However, where transfer gains should be calculated based on the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition pursuant to the main sentence of Article 97(1)1 (a) of the Income Tax Act as they fall under the expensive house.

Since there is no existing provision as to the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, there is a need to establish a separate provision as to the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, and accordingly, in the case of the assets inherited or donated under the provision of this case, the value assessed under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of

Therefore, the provision of this case is based on Article 97 (5) of the Income Tax Act, which delegates necessary matters concerning the calculation of necessary expenses such as "the scope of actual transaction price required for acquisition" to be prescribed by Presidential Decree, and cannot be deemed as invalid without delegation of the mother law. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. As to the argument

In the disposition of this case, the transfer value of the real estate of this case was assessed as the actual transaction value, and the acquisition value was assessed under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by applying the provision of this case as seen earlier. However, inasmuch as the provision of this case provides that the value assessed under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as of the date of inheritance commencement or donation shall be regarded as the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, the acquisition value of the house of this case assessed by the defendant under the provisions of Articles 60 through 66 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act by applying the provision of this case shall be deemed as the actual transaction value like the transfer value

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.